Facebook data scandal

Zuckerberg, Sandberg indirectly and Nix directly were doing the bidding of Bannon. Once again, massive and rich data set on millions of FB users, along with their sensitive info, would be very vital for the US election 2017.

These guys must some explaining to do!!!

Original Post

At the end of the day, were they really doing anything more than exploiting information people put into the public domain?  We’re all (many of us anyway) guilty of being far to free with information and then surprised how that information is used.  Now the agreements are so obscured that it’s not likely anyone has read them properly!

On another observation though... it’s amusing (to me) how some / many of the news sites who are most up in arms about Cambridge Analytical encourage or even require their users to sign in via Facebook.

Eloise, that irony had not escaped me too. That having been said, I've scrupulously avoided using FB for third party logins - thankfully using a mixture of Mac OS and iOS devices, which share a common keychain for passwords, managing multiple logins to a multiplicity of websites is manageable. 

I am minded to do a radical prune of information on FB now though! 

Eloise posted:

At the end of the day, were they really doing anything more than exploiting information people put into the public domain?  We’re all (many of us anyway) guilty of being far to free with information and then surprised how that information is used.  Now the agreements are so obscured that it’s not likely anyone has read them properly!

On another observation though... it’s amusing (to me) how some / many of the news sites who are most up in arms about Cambridge Analytical encourage or even require their users to sign in via Facebook.

I am less concerned about the personal details privacy than being upset about the way it being used to sway the US election in 2016.

Frank Yang posted:
I am less concerned about the personal details privacy than being upset about the way it being used to sway the US election in 2016.

Why? They are only doing what psephologists have been doing for centuries.  They just took advantage of Facebook and details people gave freely (if being somewhat manipulated into giving those details by Facebooks lack of privacy) to do it better than ever before.

As for swaying the election... well that’s the accusation mostly from the Democratic leaning media but who can really prove that either way?

Between Facebook, Google and Amazon the world is changing... for good or bad is yet to be seen, but it’s impossible to entirely hold back the tide.  It’s important for individuals to take responsibility.  You can choose to put your life on Facebook, but once it’s there you loose control of any privacy.  You can fill your house with Alexa and marvel at the ways it helps you... but don’t forget tha Amazons goal is for you to buy as much as possible through them.

Frank Yang posted:
Eloise posted:

As for swaying the election... well that’s the accusation mostly from the Democratic leaning media but who can really prove that either way?

Yes, it may have to be proven to convince the public, but it is as clear as daylight to me.

and to me!

The problem is that people don't notice that when you use a Facebook, Google or Twit sign-on to a 3rd party app the 'small print' below the headline button says that you agree to share your Facebook / Google / Twit data with the third party - and most people don't realise that also includes all data accessible to you from your Facebook friends or other linked accounts, even if the owners of those data haven't themselves given permission for the 3rd party access.  In the UK, this is explicitly contrary to the data protection acts, which is why the servers doing this are resident in jurisdictions with less cyber security awareness.

This issue is deadly serious for FB, and it is now facing a potential meltdown,  its  stock values keep coming down since the news came out and its investors are really spooked.

Zuckerberg must rebuild trust and he must do it fast, unless he wants to see the FB earnings disappear in no time.

Individual people's trust in Facebook is irrelevant as it only acts indirectly.

What matters is the perception of its public image by advertisers.  If the companies advertising on FB feel that it's a brand with which they no longer wish to be associated, they will pull their adds and FB's revenue will fall.  This is what's causing FB's current troubles, not governments, not QUANGOs like the law enforcement agencies.

Quoted from The Guardian:

"Cambridge Analytica conducted data research for one of the leading Brexit campaign groups and then misled the public and MPs over the work the company had undertaken, according to a former employee who has spoken to the Guardian."

So this firm misled and swayed the public over the US Election 16 and the Brexit campaign in the UK, wow!

Huge posted:

 if the owners of those data haven't themselves given permission for the 3rd party access.  In the UK, this is explicitly contrary to the data protection acts,

And is illegal under the data protection act, and if proven the fine in the UK (and I think in the EU as well with GPDR) can be a percentage of that company’s global turnover in some circumstances.

I think this could be an interesting tipping point.

I'm surprised by my own reaction to this and to the outrage it has caused as I think it is naive in the extreme to believe that personal data posted on sites like facebook would not be used by third parties both political and economic (much the same thing really) to gain an advantage. Shock horror big corporation/political party uses underhand means to gain advantage over their competitors!!!!

The only thing that is new here is the size of the information used and the fact that it can now be taken remotely from parts of the world that are less worried about things like data protection.

My own view is that if this makes the general public more wary about what the do online then it is a good thing obviously not for FB but BOO HOO!

 

It might make the public more wary but only until it all blows over or in many cases until after the next sleep.    More seriously it might make the companies such as FB & Cambridge Analytica more wary either in self protection or regulation.

Some people around me seem to be amazed that I can actually survive without being on FB & don't use Twittersphere,  but yes I do remarkably well & it seems to me to be a lot less fuss & far more pleasant state of affairs.      

Bob the Builder posted:

 

My own view is that if this makes the general public more wary about what the do online then it is a good thing obviously not for FB but BOO HOO!

That’s my view as well... I wonder if the FB era will start to see a steady decline now as it really has become too corporate and seemingly less trust worthy and moved away from its exciting and novel principles of when it first started (after it’s essentially funded by advertising technology and target advertising which raises ones suspicions straightaway).... perhaps it will be the AOL of the 2010s... I am looking forward to the next big craze....each one of these cycles brings something new, innovative and interesting, until they get too big for themselves and they themselves then give way to something new... and yes withy the reach of the web being so immense now these waves appear to get larger and larger. Me thinks the next big wave will be more AI related.... and I am confident that will throw up its own issues that then require legislation...

Adam Meredith posted:
Frank Yang posted:

Zuckerberg, Sandberg indirectly and Nix directly were doing the bidding of Bannon.

Don't forget the philanthropic Robert & Rebekah Mercer - all due credit should be given to these shy grey eminences.

"All modern political campaigns have to balance their need for exorbitant sums of money with the obsessions of the people who want to give them that money."...

" In the end, Rebekah Mercer’s mistake was that she thought she could upend the system and then control the regime she had helped to bring to power. Helping to elect a president wasn’t enough: She wanted the machinery to shape his presidency. Instead, the chaos simply continued. An administration full of insurgents, it turns out, functions in a near-constant state of insurgency. " ...

"... a new group being launched by Rebekah Mercer. And so she may yet get another chance to realize her grand ambitions. “She’s used to getting everything she wants, 100 percent of the time,”

http://highline.huffingtonpost...articles/en/mercers/

Presumably Hoopla safeguards the details and data of all of us on this here forum ?

Personality profiling seems to have been a significant part of FB saga. What assurance do we have that this forum is immune to this sort of inappropriate activity ?

I am assuming we have no such assurance.

 

Don, Social Strata who run the Hoop La platform comply with the General Data Protection Regulation.  This regulation applies to any entity who collects or processes identifiable data from EU citizens (in short, almost everyone).

As far as Naim is concerned, apart from using the registered email address to sometimes contact members in the normal course of moderation, what little other personal data is available is not used for any other purpose.  Any member who wishes to have their account deleted only need ask - indeed, I believe that a release to allow a member to delete themselves may well be imminent. All in line with GDPR.

Anyone who wishes to read Social Strata's Privacy Policy can do so here:

https://assets.socialstrata.co...s/privacy_policy.php

Like most (or probably all) of you guys it's no surprise to me what's happening, does anyone not wonder why its free to use Facebook? The people most shocked are more than likely those who share every aspect of their lives on there including that of their children. 

I am on Facebook but very rarely post or comment on anything. I am in a few groups relating to my work and the Naim owners group on there which are all closed groups.

To most people its all about showing off what you've got or what you're doing and getting up people's noses. I spend quite a bit of my time trying to educate my twelve year old daughter about the perils of social media.

Drewy, what you describe is maybe 2% of facebook. Facebook is having on many websites their trackers, which allows them to connect your - limited in use, protected account - to your entire digital live. They know which bank you use, which websites you visit, at which company you work and they have probably your entire addressbook since you (assumption here) use whatsapp. They know what time you awake and what time you go asleep. They know what television programs you watch, what music you like. This all is not directly harmful, but I can imagine more harmful things.

Facebook knows more about my wife than I do, and facebook probably knows more about me than I do.

This also counts for you, of course.

The point is that Mark Z is having the biggest treasure on this planet (significant data about 2 billion people), and he is trying to keep it for himself like the King-under-the-Mountain, but the company starts to be to big to fail and certain institutions, like the US government start to be aware that he might not be the best guy to manage it.

If wrong people start to have access to the data, people could blackmail other people. The effects on e.g. local politics can be huge this way. If some smart bloke distills a list of all gay people in a 'scientific' program, and this data gets to Saudi Arabia or Iran, certain people could ultimately be death sentenced in these countries.

Facebook is just another way of a social-control and rating system like the Chinese now try to implement theirselves. 

 

The problem was lack of control of 3rd party access to data belonging to other 3rd parties.

That is if a facebook user (the 1st party) gave access to their data to a 3rd party data agency (e.g. through agreeing to the T&C of a competition or an online survey) the data agency were then permitted to act as 'facebook friends' of the facebook user.  This allowed the  data agency access to private information of other facebook friends of the facebook user, even though the data owners (the other facebook friends) had not given permission for that access.

This contravenes the American Freedom of Information Act, the UK Data Protection Act and similar legislation throughout Europe.

You have absolutely no reason to apologise.

I agree companies are amoral - it's not that they specifically act in an immoral way; simply that that don't have any morals at all!

I used to work in IT systems design so I understand 'big data'; but I used to work for a mutual financial organisation and that is one of the very few classes of companies that have any morals built into their constitution.


However I do have a lot of time for the Icelandic people!  

“Ginny!" said Mr. Weasley, flabbergasted. "Haven't I taught you anything? What have I always told you? Never trust anything that makes money if you can't see how it does it!”

(I might have misquoted that...)

(Well I thought it was funny!)

Facebook do not even respond to complaints about their incessant notifications that they can boost your posts for instance on an interest page. They are a money making machine. I tell them I don’t want intrusive adverts but it doesn’t stop them coming. It’s enough putting up with friends who share what is essentially commercial stuff. 

They also exploit your craving for followers by deliberating reducing the number when you don’t do as they suggest by boosting posts! 

Phil

Mike-B posted:

Some people around me seem to be amazed that I can actually survive without being on FB & don't use Twittersphere,  but yes I do remarkably well & it seems to me to be a lot less fuss & far more pleasant state of affairs.      

Ditto with me. Some of my extended family think I'm mad not participating, which means they have to use e-mail/even pick up the 'phone (obviously too harder task for some  ). The scary part for me was when I looked at some work colleagues' Facebook details and could work out from a few photos where they lived, where their partners worked, what cars they drove, the names of their kids and friends - all within a minute or so. 

Happy Listener posted:
Mike-B posted:

Some people around me seem to be amazed that I can actually survive without being on FB & don't use Twittersphere,  but yes I do remarkably well & it seems to me to be a lot less fuss & far more pleasant state of affairs.      

Ditto with me. Some of my extended family think I'm mad not participating, which means they have to use e-mail/even pick up the 'phone (obviously too harder task for some  ). The scary part for me was when I looked at some work colleagues' Facebook details and could work out from a few photos where they lived, where their partners worked, what cars they drove, the names of their kids and friends - all within a minute or so. 

I'm not surprised that you could pick up that stuff. What I find odd is that it scared you. Why? I'm not bothered by who knows where I live or work, the names of our kids, or what sort of car I drive.

Winky the problem is that certain information realized by being tracked can be painful.

Not painful but happened to me:

I suddenly got adverts for baby stuff. 1 month later, my sister told me that she was pregnant. I was probably the first who knew it, even before her friend. I do think that this was caused that she has been our cleaning lady for a while and her phone was on our network therefore Facebook and Google connected her falsely to my address.

Yesterday: I got adverts for certain medicines. I asked my wife what is going on. Apparently, my screen tells me more than my wife.

I'm sure it would be great for Facebook if people could no longer find jobs without a Facebook presence. Talk about a monopoly. Our company loves researching applicants on social media because if you can manage your "brand" on Facebook, you can manage theirs. It makes sense and has its pros and cons in the world of illusions I guess. I could never buy into it. 

Add Reply

Likes (0)
×
×
×
×